Details

Statistics

The Problem of Banning Religion

EDIT: Shame I can't edit the NAME of the thread. I really mean more along the lines of, "why it's problematic to think that the world would be better for phasing out religion".

I was recently thinking about how many atheists want to ban religion outright. Even when I was an atheist I had a serious problem with this, but at the time it was more because of the social and philosophical implications of abolishing religion as a society - these being that many people are religious and not harmful towards society in any measurable way, and the destruction of an entire field of philosophy.

The most common argument against this is that "religious people cannot make good decisions because of their religious influences". I find this arrogant but also incredibly misguided. After all, atheism itself is a theological position (i.e., a position regarding a theological problem - the existence of God, and declaring that God doesn't exist) - therefore according to this argument, all atheists are also completely unjustified to have an opinion. No theological position, including atheism, can actually be justified by science - science has nothing to say other than literal interpretations of religious texts are not true, which, while there do exist fundamentalists, most religious bodies have moved beyond mere literal interpretations of religious texts - those that don't are either state mandated (such as in many middle eastern countries) or otherwise have a culture of rigid adherence (such as in the Deep South). Furthermore, having an authority determine who and who cannot have an opinion is something that historically lead to dictatorships. It should also be pointed out that the very idea that "religious people cannot make good decisions because of their religious influences" is not supported by science, therefore being a paradoxical opinion.

Furthermore, the destruction of an entire field of philosophy, to me, is completely unacceptable; especially considering how much influence on society these philosophies still have on our culture today. For example, the very concept of a "soul", whether it is believed to be "real" or not, is derived from a western religious context; to dismantle it will destroy a large chunk of our ability to study our own society, and likewise, our own social biases.

However, I think what's really wrong with it is that I find the very stance promoted here to be hypocritical, because atheists usually will also argue that religion is not needed to guide morality (something I agree with).

This presents a serious problem, because the implication is that religion essentially "taints" the ability for individuals to think for themselves; however, at the same time, people are still able to make decisions for themselves. What is actually being said here? That religion "erases" the ability to have a personal morality? If this is true, then why do so many interpretations of religious morality exist? In all religions, people disagree with moral guidelines presented by the religion - this implies that people still have their own moral guidance affecting them, and therefore, religion does not "taint" their ability to think clearly.

Indeed, it's almost as if these groups of atheists forget that many researchers who have made tremendous contributions to science have religious or spiritual backgrounds - and that spirituality/religion serves a separate purpose from understanding material, naturalistic phenomena. They can be scientific by isolating their religious views from their scientific ones.

Now, personally, I don't think atheism is the problem here, but I do find it concerning that many atheists argue that we should abolish religion. In my personal experience, dogmatism is not bound to religion, but rather bound to a set of rules on how someone should live their lives, something that is promoted by the idea of abolishing religion.

TL;DR I wish internet atheists would go get a STEM degree and actually contribute to the knowledgebase of science instead of constantly fellating it.

Sorry for not posting it earlier I wrote this quickly before going to work.

My late sister also frequently brought this subject up so it is a relevant issue. I don't think "all atheists" believe it, but there are certainly enough that agree with a position like this and don't see what's wrong with it.

Atheism is not a theological position. It simply means to most that, unless there is sufficient evidence to prove there is such a thing as a deity, one doesn't believe in deities. Atheism in on its own makes no claim that god(s) don't exist. But what we can ASSUME there is no such thing as a god based on that there is no evidence, like we can assume that there are no unicorns based on that we haven't found evidence of unicorns.

An atheist doesn't have to be into science and doesn't have to be knowledgeable of science either. You can have someone that believe crystal power and hooky spooky spirits are real, but doesn't believe in any god(s). A person like that would still be, by definition, an atheist.

Anyway,onto the matter at hand:

Although I do believe that the world would be a far better place without the limitations and influence of religions, banning and controlling what people choose to believe in is outright tyrannical.

Doing so would make you no better than the inquisition who used holy text to justify acts of violence. Why anyone who claims to uphold science and rationality would want this is beyond me, then I guess extremists can be found in any group and ideology.

Atheism is literally denying the existence of a God. How is this NOT a theological position? Is denying the existence of God somehow not a position on God?

Come on, I used to be an atheist. I know what "atheism" is.

> world would be a better place without the limitations of religion

Is this a problem with religion, or the political infrastructure surrounding religion? After all, religion was used as a means to control politically for thousands of years. But what's to say that religion cannot be replaced with a more secular explanation?

This is a real concern because as we transition away from a religious society, another philosophy can be used to occupy that position, using similar tactics. Considering that many popular pop scientists try to dissuade people away from philosophy and act as if it's some archaic methodology, I'm concerned it's already a problem.

I should point out if you believe this, some of the most important scientists of all time, such as Bohr, Einstein abd others were proponents to philosophy. This anti-philosophy shit has to stop.

It's not denying the existence of a god. "There is no god!" is different from "I don't believe in a god."

If you were really an atheist you'd know this. Actively denying the existence of a god is anti-theism, as opposed to a-theism.

The promotion of ignorance by religion is one of the biggest concerns for me. Parties with agendas will always use whatever is available to them as a means of justifying political control.

Religion is not philosophy. I can look at something through the scope of philosophy without to resorting to religion or even spirituality. Science is also not philosophy. Science deals in repeatable observations, things that can be proven, hard facts, hypothesis and theories. So obviously scientists don't use philosophy to explain something scientifically.

Yes, those people were religious. Emphasis on "WERE". Medicine in the time of Albert Einstein was not the same as it was today either. It's the past. We didn't know the same things then then we did now and things change.

Some of the most influential astronomers in ancient history believed the stars were part of some firmament. We know better today.

I think you're really grasping at straws here. Saying that there is no God is almost exactly the same thing as not believing in a god. Instead of saying "you would know if you were an atheist", why don't you explain the difference and why one is a position on the existence of God and the other isn't? Are you suggesting that by having it be your opinion that it is no longer a position?

Also seriously cut out this "real atheist" shit. It's pathetic. Explain yourself instead of relying on no true scotsmans.

> promoters of ignorance through religion is a concern for me

Honestly, promoters of ignorance in general are a concern for me. Both atheists and religious folk can be an ample source of ignorance on each other. Perhaps the world would be a better place if either would be interested in educating themselves about the other.

> religion is not philosophy

Religion is a sub sect of philosophy, formally called "theology". Theology has many philosophical concepts presented in it. It's true that theology goes beyond just raw philosophy (such as tradition, culture and lore) but philosophy is a very important aspect of religion.

Also, science is not a "philosophy" per se but is constructed from many individual philosophies, including naturalism/materialism (metaphysics) and empiricism/rationalism (epistemology)

> were religious

are you seriously conflating religion with philosophy??????? You literally just said that religion wasn't philosophy. When I said that these scientists were promoting philosophy, I meant they were promoting philosophy. Since when did I argue that their religious beliefs had anything to do do with anything?

By the way, the reason why the belief in a firmament isn't true, is because its a claim in materialism which can readily be observed to be false. Religion frequently transcends materialism and claims it is illusory or a consequence of consciousness. Not a good argument.

Everyone already knows that FoxyJew is just trolling. It is pretty damned obvious. What is amazing is that you got all offended at Arcana-nan because of what you assumed they thought, which to me sounds like paranoia.

Also, you constantly and unapologeticly take jabs at nearly every religion out there. So you should not have a problem with anyone taking a jab at Jewish people unless you are a hypocrite... oh wait, you are. Nevermind, carry on then.

Oh come on, you could give it a shot. Really I'm just frustrated with a shitty argument I've seen a few times, most notably here: youtu.be/m-x8WY1XAc0?t=9m54s

Yes, it's a real argument and it's fucking embarrassing that this video unironically has hundreds of thousands of views. end my life.

NO of course I don't believe most atheists actually believe this but it's worrying how something like this could go pretty hard and unchecked. 100k+ views isn't something that can easily be brushed under the rug, nor can all those comments in agreement.

I do think it's absurd and completely out of touch with society and the demographics of most religious people to argue that religion itself is the problem and people who are religious could be influenced in such a way that makes their opinion no longer valid. And at the end of the day I think the hatred just comes from people being shitty and religion offers an outlet for it, just like racism, political differences, ect. do.

Either way, I don't even think that's the core problem with religion being banned anyways because the number of people who actually have that martyr complex seem to be pretty small; similar to the number of atheists who actually believe this bilge...

I don't see what's contentious about the youtuber's deconstruction of the "No True Scotsman"argument the religious use to distance themselves from the extremists of their groups?

What that the entirety of the U.S. evangelical christian does not believe that they are constantly being persecuted because they can't have their beliefs granted deference by the secular government? No there is no outrage every year over christmas for no reason other than people preferring to say "happy holidays". Even if though it is in actuality a minority it is a well funded and pervasive minority with political power.

Okay, so what if its a minority with political power? Don't you think that's a problem more with the culture of the United States rather than the religion itself? After all, Germany literally has church taxes but doesn't uphold the same dogmatic approach to religion in regards to its society. I find it weird that people target the religion and not the fact that US culture literally encourages this sort of behaviour, and the only reason why it occurs with evangelicalism is because it's the current belief with the power.

Do you really believe it would be any different if it was any other theological position?

Considering that protestant evangelical christianity is what has governed U.S. society it is in fact to blame. People like you seem to pretend as if religious organizations have never conducted social engineering when religion is nothing but social engineering.

As for your false equivalence in theological positions. Obviously they are not the same. And an atheistic stance is more in line with scientific reasoning than a theistic one. Theism is belief in god(s). Atheism is without belief of god(s). Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge rather than belief. It states that one does not know whether they believe in god(s) or not. If they don't know then they don't actually believe.

An atheist is not convinced by the theist's claims about god(s), primarily due to a significant lack of evidence or sound reasoning. That is the very basis of scientific methodology. As the reason science itself has no stance on whether god(s) do or do not exist is because there is no evidence to investigate the claims of theism. They are either unfalsifiable or have already been falsified. Falsification being the cornerstone of any scientific theory in which a theory can be tested via the peer review process.

You need only turn on the news to see the hypocrisy of christianity as they defend their criminal and chief simply because he was on their side.

Literally proven false by the fact that religious texts have thousands of interpretations. If religion were a means to simply control people, it's extremely ineffective at doing so through the texts alone.

Of course, religious beliefs are very abusable because of the nature of them dealing with heavy, existential questions regarding why we suffer, the purpose of our lives, the bigger picture that we fit into, and what happens after death. Anyone trying to maintain control can easily abuse these ideas and claim they can guarantee security for things that invoke fear in a population.

But is that religion, or is that the political exploitation of religion? This is a serious question, because other ideas, including scientific inquiry, could potentially be abused in a similar manner. Considering that people like Dawkins, Krauss and Tyson regularly decontextualize and misrepresent religious beliefs, I would argue it's already occurring, but has not reached political influence yet, due to a still lingering (but dying) religious authourity.

I thought this was the obvious reason why the Catholic Church kept the bible in Latin for so long - so that they could control the source of the word.

If you cannot see how these beliefs can and were abused historically and just point to a history book saying "hurr durr, religion is bad cuz the church was bad", please learn an inkling about politics, sociology and theology before typing more. Seriously, you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

> atheistic is more in line with scientific inquiry

Only when interpreting theism literally, which I'd a straw man only applicable to fundamentalists, whom I agree are horribly naive.

This can be easily understood by understanding the basis of science, and understanding basic properties of God. Science, by definition, assumes materialism and naturalism. Aka, assuming the outside world exists and we can observe it, make observations and conclusions.

God, however, by most definitions, is Supernatural. This means that it is logically impossible to find God through science. All that can be proven are material, naturalistic claims, which are easily disproven. Furthermore, claiming that science "proves" god to not be real is a circular argument, because science relies on naturalism, and god by definition transcends naturalism.

Furthermore, cmaiming science disproves God is similar to "disproving", say, Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse (which I'm sure is a very useful use of time).

Believing religious texts as material literalisms really is just as stupid as believing in any fictional book as literal. But don't fictional books have the potential to, idk, make you think about things in your life? Steppenwolf wasn't written to be a literal truth. Otherwise all you'd get from it is some old dude going on a fucking weird ass trip in a magic show.

It's possible that religious texts were written the way they are because the ideas are so abstract that they were difficult to actually communicate. Do recall that they are thousands of years old in many cases, before we were able to communicate such abstract ideas in a more sophisticated manner.

This doesn't even get into the fact that literature is interpreted by the reader, who is influenced by their own culture, and thus will have an interpretation unique to them. This is part of the reason why Martin Luther translating the Bible into German was such a big deal - it gave people the ability to think for themselves. (Yes he was also shitty in other ways but this was also almost 500 years ago).

Come on, even when I literally knew nothing about religion I understood this basic af shit.

> lack of sound reasoning

Again, this is caused more by the context of the atheist's thinking rather than religion being "false". Of course religion is going to be false in a materialist, naturalistic PoV because it transcends both.

Many religions argue that materialism is an illusion in some sense, which is not really that absurd considering our consciousness could be simulated on a computer, causing a similar effect. So really, the only reason why it's "sound" is because one limits their context to a materialist, naturalistic view.

> hypocrisy of Christianity

You say this as if any other group of people wouldn't cover their friend's asses. It's almost as if corruption is a consequence of people and their own selfish intentions, not their influences. Are you trying to tell me that people really don't have their own morals and rely only on external factors? Again, didn't I bring that up in my OP?

Finally, I would like to point out where I think science is useful. IMHO, science is the best description of material phenomena we have. Even though I don't believe materialism to be fundamental to existence, it is something I experience and therefore in a material context, is very helpful. Does that make it the underpinning of reality? No. I can't even know what that is. You and I are dumb man monkeys, not some omniscient entity that can know everything, or even enough to conclude anything useful on the subject.

Tl;dr how about you fucking learn a little bit about what you're criticizing instead of peddling propaganda. You're nearly as bad as the fundamentalists.

I'd say he IS a fundamentalist, lol.I don't see any reason to NOT lump all fundamentalists into one type of attitude, no matter their religion or ideology.These are people who will NEVER listen to you saying something they ALREADY don't hold as THE Ultimate Truth.Not because you are wrong in saying that, but because they don't ALLOW you to have such a RIGHT to begin with.And that really pisses me off.

If religion were a means to simply control people, it's extremely ineffective at doing so through the texts alone. That's in spite of the clear dictates of religions because in reality it doesn't make sense that 'wearing combined fabric clothing is considered an abomination'. Most of the interpretations were done to benefit individuals as with islam, the church of England, and mormonism.

But is that religion, or is that the political exploitation of religion? Before the rise of secularism there was no division between church and state. Romans 13-1.

If you cannot see how these beliefs can and were abused historically How do you know that was the very reason for religion? There is no denying the extent of influence and wealth garnered by religious organizations especially in the case of your own example in catholicism.

Science, by definition, assumes materialism and naturalism.It's not an assumption but what is evident.God, however, by most definitions, is Supernatural. This means that it is logically impossible to find God through science.That's the claim but it wasn't always like that. Hell science began by inquisitive believers trying to understand god's majesty. Only to find out these aspects of reality did not require the supernatural to explain them. This is how the 'god of the gaps' came to be. I never said "science proves god isn't real". I said there is no evidence for it.

But don't fictional books have the potential to, idk, make you think about things in your life? Steppenwolf wasn't written to be a literal truth. Otherwise all you'd get from it is some old dude going on a fucking weird ass trip in a magic show. Are you even a christian if you don't literally believe in Jesus Christ? The answer is no. It's possible that religious texts were written the way they are because the ideas are so abstract that they were difficult to actually communicate. Do recall that they are thousands of years old in many cases, before we were able to communicate such abstract ideas in a more sophisticated manner.You only need to look at how it was historically believed. The further back you go the less allegorical it is treated the more literal it is taken. Why then if the people who lived close to or as these text were penned treated them literally why would it "actually" be meant to be taken allegorically?

Again, this is caused more by the context of the atheist's thinking rather than religion being "false". Of course religion is going to be false in a materialist, naturalistic PoV because it transcends both.Who's making straw men again?

Many religions argue that materialism is an illusion in some sense, which is not really that absurd considering our consciousness could be simulated on a computer, causing a similar effect. So really, the only reason why it's "sound" is because one limits their context to a materialist, naturalistic view.Philosophical projection. Another thing religions tend to argue is that doubt is bad, credulity is good, and the wise are fools. That passage was actually aimed at philosophers of the time.You say this as if any other group of people wouldn't cover their friend's asses. It's almost as if corruption is a consequence of people and their own selfish intentions, not their influences. It's particularly 'damning' for christians as the act itself and the individual in question are literally against the tenets of the belief.

Tl;dr how about you fucking learn a little bit about what you're criticizing instead of peddling propaganda. You're nearly as bad as the fundamentalists.Dude I've been at this awhile and nothing I've posted even remotely resembles what you think you're arguing against.

The more correct fact is that Christianity (and Islam) house a plethora of fucktards who use God as the umbrella LABEL for them to in reality do everything AGAINST God's actual commandments.Still, it's not the religion that is at fault - but the generic trend of abusing LABELS for personal gain and foolishness.This happens to pretty much ANY label out there to begin with, after all - religious, political, ideological, ANY of them, sooner or later.

It'd be just a dick move honestly, sure. There is some, horrible religious people out there. But in the end, most religious people in this day and age. Don't cause much issues with their religion. So it'd be just wrong too get rid of it, since the majority aren't even doing anything. To deserve it.

Why would any atheist even attempt to ban religion? It just doesn't make any sense. The vast majority of atheists want people to think for themselves, and frankly, that's really hard to do when other people tell you what to think (or better not to think) by banning certain ideas, philosophies or theories. To an actual atheist banning the bible sounds about as stupid as banning The Lord of the Rings.

this video offers a reason why an atheist would support it, along with many commenters who agree. 100k views is pretty worrying. Considering the content produced by the channel I find it hard to believe it was made in jest.

I am at least glad by how many atheists on the forum think this proposition is completely abusrd and irresponsible.

Also, what is with this "actual atheist" shit? I'm pretty sure an "actual atheist" is just someone who doesn't believe in God. Plenty of atheists also believe in stupid shit like this as well.

Even when I was an atheist though I don't think the problem is just the problem of banning literature. Few people after all actually believe Lord of the Rings has any sort of existential/transcental value. People have beliefs that are heavily inspired by the Bible and religious teachings, so banning a religion heavily influences these beliefs - some of these beliefs are indeed fundamentalist and I would agree pose a threat to society but most beliefs held by religious people are a lot less literal, a lot less about memorizing facts and more about applying philosophical principles gathered from the text and applying it to their lives. Are these beliefs dangerous? Can they even really be summed up into a "religion"? Sometimes I wonder if the beliefs just have a common origin...

"Actual atheist" shit? Well, there are atheists and there are anti-theists. There is a big difference! Atheists don't believe in god, while anti-theists are against any form of religion. You can certainly be the former without being the latter.Apart from that, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest not using terms such as "shit" anymore.

I only brought it up because several people have made this claim. I'm not sure why anti theist and atheist are mutually exclusive terms. Reeks of no true Scotsman. Several people in this thread act like becayse their personal view of atheism is different than the one I'm talking about, that it doesn't somehow represent "real atheists" as opposed to a subgroup.

Also, fuck off, this is deviantart, half of the people in this thread are fucking morons. Most of the people who are regulars on the philosophy forum are idealogues or trolls.

"Atheist" and "anti-theist" are NOT mutually exclusive terms. I never said so. I wrote "you can be the former without being the latter". Your initial question is stupid. People who want religion banned are anti-theists. That's the ONLY thing they all have in common. Some may be atheists, but that's not really saying much as atheists can be basically anything besides theists. With a lot of atheists being chocolate eaters, you could have asked "Why do so many chocolate lovers want to ban religion?". It would have been an equally valid - aka stupid - question. Most atheists don't give a shit about religion. There are far more religious people hating against non-believers than vice versa.Oh, and "fuck off!" to you too, good sir!

Listen, my original question isn't about banning religion; it's about why it's a paradox to believe both that religion is dangerous because it makes people believe "bad morals" along with believing that people come up with their own morals.

Can you cut the crap already, we get it, you are offended that I might have suggested that all atheists hate religion or whatever. You can never be careful enough with triggered, self righteous atheists afoot.

But whatever, you obviously think that arguing on deviantart, land of inflation fetists, is worth your time... I'm just bored and like to see how people respond, what's your excuse?

Your original question isn't about banning religion? Then why is the goddamn title of this thread "the problem of banning religion"? Why'd you write "I was recently thinking about how many atheists want to ban religion outright". I'm not offended by any suggestion you made apart from the "fuck off", which barely counts as a suggestion. I just can't stand stupidity. Regardless, I too am bored. And I like arguing.

Probably because I wrote the post quickly before work yesterday and couldn't come up with a better title and I can't change it.

I said "fuck off" because it's fucking deviantart, abd you were telling me that I shouldn't say "shit" if I want to be "taken seriously". On a fucking forum full of posts from trolls, white supremacists, and delusional people. It's literally the armpit of the internet, do you think I care? Do you seriously lack that much self awareness?

You forgot to account for the hordes of warring fanatical anti-theists PRETENDING to be "mere atheists".Such people are the true reason why atheists and theists find it hard to communicate on friendly terms to begin with.

Weirdly some people actually believe this to be a solution. It's very impractical at the very least.

I am against religious fundamentalism but I think that's more because it shuts down philosophical discussion, which is where I think religion originated in the first place. (Even if that discussion was just, "where did the sun come from?")

Well, as soon as those kind of tenets start showing their ugly faces then there's real oppression at work that should be addressed. Some religions work in the opposite way, e.g. Buddhism and Taoism, where no message is to be swallowed but reflected on and understood.

Lol they are showing their faces, look at all the people who flood millions of dollars towards pop scientists who, while educated in their field, frequently spread misinformation about religion to push their own personal agenda. Idk about you but society wasting millions to prove god isn't real to people who claim philosophy is garbage is troubling.

I get that it isn't a political crisis (which apparently is the atheist guideline of whether we should care about issues) but I think that as society becomes more secular it will just move towards scientific dogmatism.